Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Luc Choquette Fraud Dispute

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • thedude
    replied
    Originally posted by mikrovolt
    you guys need to physically get together and draw up an agreement.
    If it comes to money then stock (paper ownership) is issued so that later
    if the business grows then equitable means can be established. the intellectual property is clearly community until reasonable efforts to include the parties involved. Believe me it all works out the same.
    I agree in principle on this mikrovolt. However my experience with indulging in deeper business relationships with someone who has betrayed your trust could very well be an example of the parable Aaron uncharacteristically quoted. I will uncharacteristically site it as well.

    "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matthew 7:6)

    I have felt this way, being a floor layer in a relatively small town that might employ a maximum of 10 independent sub-contractors, I am often forced to team up with another flooring college with whom i have a long history with. I bring this up because in more than 25 years in this trade i've had to do so repeatedly with particular individuals on larger commercial jobs that i'm unable to complete on my own. It has been my experience that once the milk of trust is soured, it very nearly never is repaired and tends to lead back to very similar issues repeatedly. I've literally had deja vu like experiences which were not deja vu at all but more like watching a rerun of an episode of the gong show playing over again and again each time i forget the trouble of the past.

    I don't say this lightly. I'm a big proponent of, "Forgive and forget". But in the business world, I'm not very optimistic about what measure of success this old motto really has. Ultimately this is Aaron's to decide, what measure of deception is excusable and which is not. Clearly not all partys are purposely violating trust in this case, and in that case, yes. I do agree that a face to face would have to be done to really come to some resolution whereby a productive outcome could be achieved.

    I'm now thinking a bit about where i keep losing all my pearls!!! Lol!

    @Aaron - Thanks Aaron for the respect. I say these things in your support, as i realize that the very domain name i host is literally riding on the coat tails of your immediate membership base. Not once did you ever indicate offence to this activity on my part. I was quite concerned that i had offended you (paranoid of this even) and offered to retract my objectives and perhaps even donate the domain, to which, if my memory serves, you were more than gentlemanly. Worked out and i hope i didn't crush too many of your toes. You showed poise and fairness then and every time i've read one of your posts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mark
    replied
    Exactly my point!! If I had my MONEY involved I would feel differently! Because its ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! GET IT!

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron
    replied
    @Mark

    Originally posted by Mark
    What I care about most is, if we can't build one ourselves, where can we buy one. Isn't that the end objective here. You know why I don't care about the legalities. Because I dont have anything invested into it. I dont have any time or money invested. Dont kid yourselves, it always boild down to the money in the end if you think about it.
    You are seriously, intentionally, doing a very good job at ignoring the
    MULTIPLE times it has been stated what with OR without this patent,
    is that there isn't any restrictions on personal use!

    Just to highlight:
    "I don't care about the legalities. Because I dont have anything invested into it. I dont have any time or money invested."

    Yes, exactly! You have nothing to lose and therefore is very easy
    for you to have an opinion about it.

    On the other hand, myself and my partners DO have a LOT of money,
    time, and effort setup that we have invested with THIS exact
    ignition method amongst several other pieces of the puzzle.

    Luc's choice to falsely claim to be the inventor and take an oath on
    top of it in order to file a patent to "protect" my circuit for open source
    builders is not only one of the most pathetic excuses I've heard in my
    life but has an intent, within the patent itself, to block our ability to
    manufacture my own invention.

    Luc made such a poor choice to assume what he did and he cannot
    escape the consequences no matter how far he runs and neither can
    Karthi.

    When you do have something to lose, when you do have substantial
    time, money and effort involved in something, then maybe, just maybe,
    your opinion of the matter will carry some weight.

    You say so yourself that you don't care because you have nothing
    invested! Yeah, no kidding.

    Leave a comment:


  • mikrovolt
    replied
    you guys need to physically get together and draw up an agreement.
    If it comes to money then stock (paper ownership) is issued so that later
    if the business grows then equitable means can be established. the intellectual property is clearly community until reasonable efforts to include the parties involved. Believe me it all works out the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mark
    replied
    Originally posted by Mark
    My opinion especially after reading the beginning of the threads is that the "invention" was already placed in the public domain as a "free gift" and can not be patented. I think that the only thing that should be done here is whatever is required to ensure that this remains in the public domain for all to share, use, sell or whatever they want to.

    Mark
    Aaron

    I'm not sure why you continue attacking me. Reread my first post again. I thought the reason that we all came to this thread is so we could all work together to try and solve the energy problems. If someone comes up with a way to run an engine on water, sweet! When can I buy one!

    My post was a statement. I dont care who owns it, I just dont want it to get covered up. I want people to be able to build it, sell it, whatever. Where can I buy one!

    LoL, I don't know why I'm wasting my time here with this post.

    Aaron you need to relax a little before you have a stroke. Dont be so defensive. I made a simple statement and you attack. I probably should have just left it but I didn't. I'm going to try and make this my last post on this particular thread. But before I go I've got one more thing to say.

    I dont really care about all the legalities of this whole situation. I don't have a clue as to who is right or wrong and I really dont care. What I care about most is, if we can't build one ourselves, where can we buy one. Isn't that the end objective here. You know why I don't care about the legalities. Because I dont have anything invested into it. I dont have any time or money invested. Dont kid yourselves, it always boild down to the money in the end if you think about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron
    replied
    Blue Phoenix Ignition - Karthikeyan Ramananthan - Richard Hann - Luc Choquette

    Originally posted by aquapulser
    Aaron how come you ask everyone who does not agree with your position to show videos of their work when you are not holding your friend / partner Arvind to the same standard of scrutiny.

    The truth is this circuit will not work because in the water spark plug circuit the single capacitor has to charge upto fire the primary side as well as discharge across the secondary and if premature detonation happens the circuit cannot detect it because there is no current to leak across the gap.

    I do not want to commit fraud!

    It was basically for insurance against people like you who might say no it was not luc but it was me who came up with the idea first.

    Without that patent you cannot use the water spark plug circuit on a coil over plug ignition system.

    So to boil it down there are only two working actually existing concepts on this patent application and that is my invention and Luc’s circuit

    @Aaron : You conveniently deleted and edited your posts removing the statement that I have resources to fight you by closing bank accounts.

    Clearly both you and Arvind are conspiring to defame and libel me in this forum in public.

    The fact that you deleted and sanitized your posts to hide this also shows you have malice of forethought and you are abusing your power as moderator to prevent the members of this forum knowing about your close friendship with Arvind.
    Re: ionization detection - that is fine with me - I have already said I
    have no interest in that or your coil on plug method. I don't need to see
    either one. And to answer you further, I have never seen a demo of it
    but again, I told you I have no claim for either of those two inventions
    and they're nothing I concern myself about. And to add to that, I have
    never seen proof that you have ever invented anything either but again
    I'm not concerned with that either.

    And Arvind is not my partner is business or any venture and he never
    has been and I can prove that what you are claiming is 100% false.

    Without the ionization detection circuit, the single cap method works
    just fine and it has been used in multiple engines including s special engine
    my friend and I machined from scrap metal and tested it on. I might
    be am amateur machinist but I am determined.

    "because in the water spark plug circuit the single capacitor has to charge upto fire the primary side as well as discharge across the secondary"

    It sounds like you don't know the true workings of the circuit and don't
    know the true sequence of events. That's ok though because you're not
    building ignitions that use it anyway!

    Your explanations of how
    this plasma happens is the same one used in all patents that use a
    secondary power supply. Although they aren't the single cap method,
    they work on the same principles, yet all their explanations are wrong.
    It is a short sighted explanation that can only be reached by a very
    conventional mindset and thinking outside of the box is required to
    actually know what is going on and how to get around what you perceive
    to be problems.

    I think you mean FURTHER fraud.

    Actually, I did come up with my method first and taught it to Luc:



    You still didn't answer my questions as we have been over this a few
    times that you simply refuse to stop misdirecting people's attention to
    something else that has nothing to do with anything - so here they
    are again:

    "So, for clarification -

    1. Were you fully aware I was the inventor of the simple method shown

    in the patent? Which you could have committed a felony if you did.

    or


    2. Did Luc make a false claim to you in which case, you actually were

    being honest when you signed the oath?"


    I will use MY invention on ANY type of coil that I choose and there is
    nothing you can do about it.

    It isn't Luc's circuit - see above. And I know the reason you don't want
    it patented and it isn't because you want it open sourced - you're MUCH
    more concerned about something else.

    I don't have anything to say about your Aquapulser issue with Arvind
    because that is not my deal and has nothing to do with the issue at
    hand.

    You're using Hitler's "big lie" technique to repeat over and over that it
    is Luc's circuit although it is mine. You can repeat it until your blue in the
    face but the facts are that it is my invention and Luc's is a replication
    of Todd Miller's or S1R's. The single cap method without a secondary
    is something I came up with and taught to Luc. So please desist from
    your propaganda that anyone else came up with it.

    Conveniently? You really like that word - I can count three times you
    used it so far! Actually, you should go read the note I put in the
    edit comments of why I removed that. Now please do post my comment
    so you can remind yourself that honesty is the best policy.

    Remember Karthi, you said Arvind and I had been good friends for a really
    long time and you had emails and skype messages to prove it. All
    they prove is that I really never knew who he was and that I never knew
    who anyone from Aquapulser was until I recently found out when I learned
    about the patent application.

    You claimed Arvind presented some deal to me to sell the patent and give
    me $50,000! A patent that I wasn't even an assignee on and let
    alone a patent APPLICATION that I didn't even know existed until last
    week. So Arvind wants to sell it, which can't be done without yours
    or Luc's permission, and he wants to pass on $50k to me for
    a transaction that I'd have no way of knowing about.

    Malice and forethought - sorry - had to chuckle - you probably have
    watched too many episodes of csi or whatever other crime shows are
    on tv. I provided 4 links to all the google caches of ALL the posts for
    anyone that cares to read them - EVERYTHING is in there - go check
    it out.

    Save what you like, I have nothing to hide. I ALREADY admitted
    I asked for the entire patent to be assigned to me when I thought it
    was only about my invention. There are plenty of other examples. In
    any case, all your accusations against me I can without a doubt prove
    that you not only are fabricating blatant lies about me and my relationship
    with Arvind, which actually only began when he responded to the very
    FIRST email that I sent to BOTH OF YOU!

    Ever since then, he has taken the time to address any of my concerns
    while you and Luc tucked your tails between your legs and disappeared
    from the conversation, posted my private email, posted my private
    discussions when I asked not to - you and Luc violated my privacy
    in addition to copyright laws, which I find actually protect private email
    especially when it is posted in the email that it is intended.

    Arvind is the only that has acted with any kind of integrity while you
    and Luc are engaged in some kind of dog and pony show behind the
    scenes and in this forum.

    And I don't have to have Arvind tell me things that I can research on
    my own. You claim to have dissolved Ecoignition because Richard Hann
    was trying to sue or make claims against Ecoignition so you closed
    Ecoignition to boot out someone that was trying to sell a patent
    APPLICATION and you claimed you closed Ecoignition so Richard
    Hann wouldn't get anything and about the patent , you keep claiming
    over and over has "NO COMMERCIAL VALUE!" That is what you
    claimed. And if it has "no commercial value" - why would anyone that
    has been able to amass such a fortune be crazy enough to want to
    buy it?

    1. So if it had no commercial value, why in the world would anyone buy it?
    2. How would it be sold unless you and Luc consented to the sell being
    that both of you were also assignees to the application? You seem
    to have convinced Luc that Arvind could do this without both of your
    permission - that is so completely laughable!!!

    You dissolve Ecoignition because you publicly state Richard Hann was
    trying to sue or make claims against the company because it owed
    him money or something. Yet, soon after, here you are registering a domain
    name for another ignition company and you claim it is Richard Hann's
    and you only did the web work in lieu of payment!

    I've heard some hilarious stories in my life but I have to tell you, that
    this 'might' just take the .

    "And always let your conscience be your guide." - The Blue Fairy

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron
    replied
    @thedude

    I greatly appreciate your words of support!

    My motives are not financial because if they were, I'd be working
    with company X generating leads and selling stuff that nobody needs
    and things that I could care less about - making a FORTUNE. I just
    can't get myself to do it no matter what.

    I walked away from a health food store that I owned and was in
    business for over 25 years (I took it over - loved it but it owned me
    instead of me owning it) - used to generate a good 6 figures and I
    closed it down 100% to stay home so I could do what I love and was
    fortunate that I could work online. That was a good field to be in but
    I'd rather take a pay cut doing something that I'm happier about - not
    at all a personality trait of someone that is money hungry.

    MOST of my time away from personal time is spent on open source
    projects that I put more time and effort into than I should considering
    the reward is less than my financial investment - but that is what comes
    along with simply pursing one's passion and the willingness to share things
    that I believe everyone has a right to know.

    And I'm actually not trying to patent anything. Out of principle,
    I considered pursuing the patent because it is my invention and is actually
    patentable and I'd be able to block any company from selling it that
    I wanted. And I already said, as admitted by KR that I'd give open source
    builders permission to continue to use the circuit all they want. Also,
    it would set the record straight of who is the actual inventor. So anyone
    complaining that they should have a right to do what they want with it,
    well NO DUH! So all those points are moot!

    My intent to either pursue the patent application or have it withdrawn is
    an option that I have and I don't think any of these other people have
    any say so in it.

    Even if the patent didn't exist and I wanted to manufacture it and sell
    it, and others did too, their efforts would have absolutely no impact on
    my ability to make as much money as I wanted off of it. The world is wide
    open and there is no one company that could take on the entire world
    and no company ever has even in the world of monster conglomerates.

    And as for blocking others ability to do anything with it, considering the
    nature of some individuals, I'd say I would have absolutely no problem
    with blocking certain people from doing anything with it if I honestly
    believed had a serious ethical problem.

    A rare bible quote from me:
    Matthew 7:6

    Leave a comment:


  • admin
    replied
    @thedude

    Originally posted by thedude
    I completely trust and believe Aaron. Although I am troubled by the idea that projects that are published in a open forum, some of which grow and develop there, could eventually become restrictive information to the public as a whole. I don't blame Aaron for the fact that these issues are even being pursued. He was not the one attempting to patent anything until others swooped in. I'm not buying that Aaron's motives are financial
    I greatly appreciate your words of support!

    My motives are not financial because if they were, I'd be working
    with company X generating leads and selling stuff that nobody needs
    and things that I could care less about - making a FORTUNE. I just
    can't get myself to do it no matter what.

    I walked away from a health food store that I owned and was in
    business for over 25 years (I took it over - loved it but it owned me
    instead of me owning it) - used to generate a good 6 figures and I
    closed it down 100% to stay home so I could do what I love and was
    fortunate that I could work online. That was a good field to be in but
    I'd rather take a pay cut doing something that I'm happier about - not
    at all a personality trait of someone that is money hungry.

    MOST of my time away from personal time is spent on open source
    projects that I put more time and effort into than I should considering
    the reward is less than my financial investment - but that is what comes
    along with simply pursing one's passion and the willingness to share things
    that I believe everyone has a right to know.

    And I'm actually not trying to patent anything. Out of principle,
    I considered pursuing the patent because it is my invention and is actually
    patentable and I'd be able to block any company from selling it that
    I wanted. And I already said, as admitted by KR that I'd give open source
    builders permission to continue to use the circuit all they want. Also,
    it would set the record straight of who is the actual inventor. So anyone
    complaining that they should have a right to do what they want with it,
    well NO DUH! So all those points are moot!

    My intent to either pursue the patent application or have it withdrawn is
    an option that I have and I don't think any of these other people have
    any say so in it.

    Even if the patent didn't exist and I wanted to manufacture it and sell
    it, and others did too, their efforts would have absolutely no impact on
    my ability to make as much money as I wanted off of it. The world is wide
    open and there is no one company that could take on the entire world
    and no company ever has even in the world of monster conglomerates.

    And as for blocking others ability to do anything with it, considering the
    nature of some individuals, I'd say I would have absolutely no problem
    with blocking certain people from doing anything with it if I honestly
    believed had a serious ethical problem.

    A rare bible quote from me:
    Matthew 7:6

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron
    replied
    @Mark

    Luc was assisted in his "original" circuit I was told recently.

    My "small change", as insignificant as it may seem to some,
    proved all the theories wrong, eliminated a lot of
    components and completely eliminated the need for a second power
    supply in addition to proving it can be had from the same capacitor.

    The "bla bla bla" should be qualified as it has never been lip service
    to me. I have continued to put the word out to this day and was
    actually working on a package to go to a lot of mainstream people
    that told them about this method - then when I was going to dedicate
    the package to Luc as the initial inspiration for me on this particular
    type of ignition method, I searched his name to make sure I spelled it
    right to find he took credit for
    my very specific innovation in a patent application! lol

    Anytime money gets involved? Excuse me, but I pursued this, it would
    be countless dollars out of my pocket for legal fees, to finalize the
    patent process while at the same time excluding all open source
    builders from personal infringement!

    Also for your information, having a patent doesn't mean there is money
    falling from the sky. It is actually the OPPOSITE except for the minority
    of exceptions. AND, without a patent, I could still have certain items
    manufactured and make plenty of money even if someone else wanted
    to make the same thing. So, please qualify your accusations because
    they certainly don't apply to me.

    Quoting "post" possibly implies that there are those that replicated it but
    never posted it including you. That is nice and everything but anyone
    that did replicate it and never felt the need to contribute their findings
    I would imagine has the least room to talk out of anyone when it comes
    to judging anyone that either has posted and contributed their work
    publicly or feels the need to protect something that they evidently
    are legally entitled to protect.

    Leave a comment:


  • thedude
    replied
    My goodness...

    I remember postulating on the subject of inventions revealed in the open community. I believe we work this way for the sake of growing and improving our world and for gaining inspiration. Its unfortunate that in our competitive capitalistic economy, we are simply forced to maintain patent rights for the sake of preventing misuse.

    This is a very complicated case. I completely trust and believe Aaron. Although I am troubled by the idea that projects that are published in a open forum, some of which grow and develop there, could eventually become restrictive information to the public as a whole. I don't blame Aaron for the fact that these issues are even being pursued. He was not the one attempting to patent anything until others swooped in. I'm not buying that Aaron's motives are financial, I'd be a bit sore and concerned for clarity after all of this too. However, it seems to go adverse to the spirit of these forums to selectively permit use. Sure hope it doesn't come to that, but given the circumstances, I'd understand if it did.

    I really think that this case is a clear example of just how far we are from a competitive economy to one of cooperation.

    Sorry things got this difficult Aaron. I glad your getting some justification and clarity here. Be strong!

    Leave a comment:


  • aquapulser
    replied
    Aaron how come you ask everyone who does not agree with your position to show videos of their work when you are not holding your friend / partner Arvind to the same standard of scrutiny.

    Did you ever ask Arvind to show you an actual video or working prototype of his ionization detection “invention” ?

    The truth is no such device or invention exists, no prototypes of this invention exist. There isn’t even a dummy model.

    The ionization detection patent is based on this patent:
    Ignition system with ionization detection

    It is very simple. The second booster capacitor is connected in parallel to the spark plug and a circuit detects current across the spark gap. In the event of premature detonation or similar events when ignition is not supposed to happen, the secondary capacitor leaks current which is measured by the ionization detection circuit and depending on the current level a computer determines if the event was actual ignition or premature detonation. If you will look at the original patent there is a graph showing the results of a working device.

    In our patent application no such graph is there because no such device exists. Arvind saw this patent and figured that in theory you can place an ionization detection circuit in the luc bypass path and call it a patent. I was the one that wrote up the claims and generated the diagrams.

    So if by invention if you mean simply looking up an existing patent and simply redrafting the text then yes this is a genuine “invention”. If you don’t believe me why don’t you ask Arvind to show his invention to this forum. Ask him to post a video of his ionization detection circuit invention!!!

    The truth is this circuit will not work because in the water spark plug circuit the single capacitor has to charge upto fire the primary side as well as discharge across the secondary and if premature detonation happens the circuit cannot detect it because there is no current to leak across the gap.
    I have attached the ionization detection patent application text as well as images filed for everyone to see. It is simple cut paste.

    I am sure since you are so well versed in Patent law, filing for a patent for a non existent device is illegal and is downright a fraud. (This is another reason why this patent application should die as I do not want to commit fraud!)
    Tell me again why you want this patent application to be continued after knowing these facts!

    So why did Arvind the “inventor” of the ionization detection patent include it…well here is the truth Aaron.

    It was basically for insurance against people like you who might say no it was not luc but it was me who came up with the idea first. The purpose was to have enough claims so that the patent application can still stand on its own even if the claim of the bypass path was knocked down during the examination stage as prior art. So even if Luc’s bypass path claim (that you also claim to have invented) was knocked down, the patent application can still be claimed as an ionization detection circuit leaving your disputed claims out!!!!

    The coil on plug patent that I came up with is an actual working device that was conceived and prototyped by me without anyone’s contribution from any posting on any forum. This device was part of the working demo that was displayed at tradeshows. Without that patent you cannot use the water spark plug circuit on a coil over plug ignition system.

    So to boil it down there are only two working actually existing concepts on this patent application and that is my invention and Luc’s circuit and ironically neither of us want to see this patented.

    @Arvind who claims I took everything from him including videos etc: I have left him everything, the Aquapulser website, the Aquapulser brandname, including all customer lists, Ecoignition brand name and customer tradeshow leads.With the exception of the logo image on the Aquapulser site all the photos and images on the www.aqpuapulser.com site were shot by me.

    Arvind has also uploaded all the old Aquapulser videos that was made 100% solely by me under his new youtube account:
    Aquapulser EcoIgnition - YouTube

    I have never contested any of this even though I have the legal right to and I don’t plan to. He is free to sell plasma ignition products under both these brand names. In fact Aquapulser.com has a well established presence on the internet and comes up first on Google search rankings for plasma ignition.

    Yet Arvind he knowingly makes false statements and says this is not enough and I took everything from him when all I did was refuse to assign the patents exclusively to one company because of his business strategy to commercialize the patent that in essence has only two genuine inventions, Luc’s water spark plug circuit and the coil on plug for dual energy ignition, my invention.


    @Aaron : You conveniently deleted and edited your posts removing the statement that I have resources to fight you by closing bank accounts. The fact that I closed company bank accounts are a private matter that is known only to me and Arvind. Yet you are aware of these facts and posted them online. Clearly both you and Arvind are conspiring to defame and libel me in this forum in public. The fact that you deleted and sanitized your posts to hide this also shows you have malice of forethought and you are abusing your power as moderator to prevent the members of this forum knowing about your close friendship with Arvind.

    You can delete these posts but I have saved them…all your original unedited posts!!

    Explain yourself Aaron how you know of these facts about me closing bank accounts and why you deleted them if the only communication between you and Arvind was about the disputed patent application?
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Mark
    replied
    Aaron

    I put invention in quotes because I wasn't sure if I should refer to "it" as an invention or circuit or plazma discharge or whatever way one would prefer to "it" as. Don't know why you would think I was trying to "belittle
    it in such a way".

    The way I have been reading this is that Luc or even someone before him posted the circuit to begin with, and you just made a small change to it. Maybe I'm wrong but thats the way I'm reading it at this point. (I havent read the whole thread) Now I may well be incorrect but if I'm not, I would say that it is thier invention. But I don't really care who's invention it is. After I read the first few posts everyone was so concerned about getting this into the publics hands and making sure it was available and bla bla bla. And now after all the preaching it seems to have once again come down to "show me the money"! This is a good example of why we dont have "free energy" now and probably never will. Anytime money gets involved it ruins everything. Its just sad.

    Aaron your comment here: "Wow - people who never posted a replication or expressed any appreciation to me before for this particular circuit suddenly feel they have something to say about it."

    Is this your true feelings? People who don't "post" a replication or show you any "appreciation" shouldn't have anything to say? Wow, thats hard core Aaron.

    With all due respect,

    Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron
    replied
    open source

    If and when this patent should ever be granted, it is of no
    consequence to open source builders so all arguments and
    opinions about this subject are a moot point. Why argue
    for something you ALREADY have?

    Mark, why put invention in quotes? Why would you belittle
    it in such a way? It is clearly the most elegant version of
    any plasma jet ignition that has ever been disclosed to the
    public in plasma jet ignition history.

    Search and find that disclosing something
    publicly does NOT automatically make it public domain and
    that is a myth too.

    Basically, SO MUCH of what all the "open source" pushers
    are claiming about IP in public domain, etc... are FALSE
    and it appears so much of the open source technology
    movement is to flush out things that others will steal
    and try to prevent others from using because most of
    the key points are not true. Personal use of a patent,
    etc... finding out most is not true as I have been led
    to believe. Shame on me I guess.

    Open source builders have ALREADY been told even if the
    patent is actually granted, they are free to replicate,
    improve or whatever else without infringement.

    Wow - people who never posted a replication or expressed
    any appreciation to me before for this particular circuit
    suddenly feel they have something to say about it.

    Maybe everyone can see why some people don't want
    to share more to open source builders.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mark
    replied
    My opinion especially after reading the beginning of the threads is that the "invention" was already placed in the public domain as a "free gift" and can not be patented. I think that the only thing that should be done here is whatever is required to ensure that this remains in the public domain for all to share, use, sell or whatever they want to.

    Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron
    replied
    @jbigness

    Originally posted by Jbignes5
    I agree with this statement.

    @Aaron:

    I would suggest that you try to understand that once you "Teach it to someone" It is a gift. Especially on this forum which is supposed to be open source.

    Here is a good statement then question for you Aaron.... You are the moderator of this forum and that forum is "Open Source" based. How can you claim anything you share here as you holding the title to if you shared it in someone else's thread or as a reply in a thread?

    Plain and simple you gave him the idea to make his original circuit work. Weather you call that giving "Teaching" or giving you still volunteered that information by submitting the reply.

    Can't we get back to what this forum is all about! Why scare brilliant people off from collaborating by continuing to bicker like this tit for tat posts.

    Another question for you Aaron? Do we have to leave this forum and start a new one that we don't have to worry about the moderator overstepping his bounds because we didn't put copyrights on the openly released information? I mean we are doing this for what exactly? I thought it was to learn the truth about science in an open collaborative way.

    It seems this is about you, Aaron, really and not about the open source community that you are to be moderating for.

    If you sent them Emails stating the proposal of royalties then this is about money then right? How does that reflect on your position as moderator of this open source community? Does this mean you are against the idea of community based sharing of ideas? Obviously your actions speak louder then words here...
    You have never provided one single pic or video of any documentation
    that you have built anything in your life so I don't see how you have much
    to say about it anyway. You talk about a lot of things but show
    nothing.

    If I show something and someone risks a felony in order to claim they
    are the inventor and to block me when I have SIGNIFICANT investment
    in my private projects that revolve around it that doesn't concern you,
    I have an issue and will obtain ownership of it since ownership of something
    I invented was filed for. This is after the fact and if you think anyone
    needs to justify anything to you, you should leave. I've provided plenty
    to open source and you have NO ROOM TO TALK - AT ALL.

    Again, show everyone here what you contribution has been besides a
    lot of talk before you question me or anyone else. As far as I know,
    you could be a disruptor to put everyone on the wrong track and I'm
    not the only one that thinks so. Where are your pics, videos and
    anything else showing all these remarkable experiments you keep claiming
    you are doing - I haven't seen a single bit of evidence yet.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X